The need for a civilian militia....

The second ammendment states that gun ownership shall not be infringed upon because of the need of a civilian militia in America's defense.

First off let me tell you the definition of a militia...
1.An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers.
2. A military force that is not part of a regular army and is subject to call for service in an emergency.

Militia, in the context of the constitution is a group that actually fight in wars. They fight in battles with the regular army. The gun clubs, that call themselves militias....are not militias. They do not activity fight in the defense of the nation.

In addition, the National Guard, which was formed with the Militia Act of 1903, is technically a militia. The idea that militias have to be self funded and self sufficient is completely BS.

So, since the National Guard acts as a militia, and there is no longer a need for the type of self funded militia that existed in the 1700s, and 1800s, I feel that the 2nd amendement should be altered to state that gun ownership is a "limited right", which is a fancy word for privilege. A person must be able to show enough knowledge of how to use a gun that he will be able to do so without harming others by accident, and must pass a mental screening to prove he has no mental illness that could cause violent tendencies. Also, I think it should be added that only violent felons lose their gun ownership privileges, and not all felons.

 

The national guard will just be used against the citizens in case of an uprising.

 

I'm sure some of the National Guard members would join in on the revolution

 

It's not the same thing. It's controlled by the state and doesnt fulfill the purpose of the second amendment.

 

And who gets to define those standards? Liberal politicians?

 

States are the ones authorized to have them, and they are to oversee recruitment and training but the Federal government chooses the officers one would assume any NCO or enlisted officer would count. Citizens under that amendment and the other parts of the constitution cannot form ragtag bands and arm up.

That said the Militia Act does include the informal militia every able man with a weapon who could volunteer for combat, but even then it would be under the authority of the government in the end.

So your partially right but to enact it the states would have to open it up OR there must be a request for men (and women) to fight by the government at some level. But it is in my view a check on the power of the government to have an armed citizenry that could if tyranny is raised defend their freedom by force of arms. As a last resort to other options.

 

Actually it does.....The second amendment states that civilian militia are for the defense of the nation.......it never states that they are for the voerthrowing of the government......That is a interpitaton that cons have come up with, but it's never actualy said.

 

Being necessary for the security of a free state.

So you are basically relying on your government to ensure your state remains free. You fail.

 

Some take that line to mean free from foreign control.

 

Oh so tyranny is free to organically develop domestically. I see.

 

As has been pointed out, while technically a militia, NG units are under control of the state. They are the states militia, not the peoples. Those guys out at the gun club claiming to be a militia are a peoples militia. The NG is still a tool of the government, while the gun club is no ones tool. The gun club is exactly what the 2nd amendment was thinking of when it came to a militia. What is the point of having a militia to fight off the government if the government owns the militia?

Also you say the gun club does not defend the US, but how could they? We're not under attack so there's no direct way of supporting the defense. However indirectly it's quiet possible they are contributing to the defense. Knowing that there are guns everywhere and that there are groups of people who would fight in (*)(*)(*)(*) near every little (*)(*)(*)(*) town can make an enemy think twice about an invasion. Unlike 3rd world fighters who are often drugged up and have no idea how to fire a weapon, American gun owners are often proficient enough to hit a target, thus are a real threat. The second amendment, and those little gun club militias, certainly add to our defense.

 

When you look at the Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments cover multiple subjects and are listed. By your definition, the Second amendment only covers one. When in fact, it doesn't. It is a list of things. The state has the right to have its own militia, and the people have the right to bear arms. In the Federalist papers, this is evident that the people have the right to bear arms and that it was the founders intent on that being so. The same goes for their quotes on the matter. It is meant for an emergency uprising against a tyrannical government.

 

[video=youtube;_YY5Rj4cQ50]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_YY5Rj4cQ50[/video]

 

Organized Militia in the US no longer exist in the same form they took during the revolution. The Militia Act of 1903 reorganized all regulated militia into one group and placed their duties under the National Guard and Coast Guard.

 

What is it about "the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed" that you folks have such a hard time understanding?

 

Actually, it's "A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

So, one could argue that they intended for all gun owners to be legally required to join a regulated militia.

Then there is the fact the right to bear arms is vague. The state is not barred from regulated types of arms, only from prohibited the ownership of arms in a general sense. They could banned all weapons except single shot pistols and would still technically be within their legal authority, since they are not keeping people from owning arms, only regulating the types of arms.

 

I beg to differ as I've lived in three states and in each of those states the State Constitution established that every able-bodied male between the age of 18 and 45 was a member of the State Militia and they were subject to call-up by the governor in the event of an emergency.

The citizen militia provides services in emergencies that are local and the National Guard is incapable of providing these services in many hypothetical cases. For example we were on the edge of a nuclear war with the USSR in 1962 that would have destroyed virtually all of the United States and it would have been up to the local citizens, using the civilian militias of their towns and even neighborhoods, to maintain law and order. There aren't nearly enough members in the National Guard of any state to do this in the aftermath of a nuclear war. It is a very real possibility today albeit less than it was in 1962 at the height of the cold war.

We can also note that the 2nd Amendment only lists one reason for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms but it is not the only reason. It is actually a misstatement as a person does not have a Right to Own a Commodity and "Arms" are a commodity. The actual Right is the Right of Self-Defense Against Acts of Aggression against the Person. That is the actual Right of the Person.

The civilian "militia" exists to protect the People from acts of aggression regardless of whether it's by a foreign nation, other Americans, or even the government of the United States. I would remind everyone that when a person joins the US military they swear an oath to defend and uphold the US Constitution against enemies both foreign and domestic. They do not swear an oath the defend the government of the United States. If the government violates the US Constitution then the "soldier" has an obligation based upon their oath to oppose the government and to defend the Constitution from the violations by the government. While that is unlikely it is hypothetically possible that a President, the Commander-In-Chief of the US military, could order the disbanding of Congress and the Courts in violation of the US Constitution and the US military is sworn to oppose the President in such a case.

The "National Guard" is not a militia as it is a formal military force that is not local in nature. The National Guard based upon the State and not the local community and civilian militias are related to the local community.

We should finally note that formal military forces (e.g. US Army, Air Force, Navy, Marines and National Guard) can be defeated in combat but local militias cannot be defeated. A determined resistance by the citizen militias of a nation cannot be defeated by a foreign military force of occupation. This has been proven so many times historically as to be beyond count. In 2007 a militia force in Iraq was defeating the US military and only the voluntary ending of the opposition by the militias to the US occupation allowed the US military to establish (a corrupt and inept) government in Iraq. The French lost in Vietnam because of the resistance of the Vietnamese People to their foreign occupation. The US subsequently lost in Vietnam because of the resistance by the Vietnamese People (in both North and South Vietnam) to the US occupation. The USSR lost in Afghanistan because of the opposition of the Afghanistan People.

Today we "believe" that the US will never be invaded again but that is a false belief as times do change. It may not happen for 50, 100, or more years but it always remains a possiblity and the civilian militias remain the final safeguard against such an invasion. They cannot be defeated. The "armed citizens" of the United States outnumber every government military force in the world today.

 

No, it pretty much looks like you are picking and choosing what part of the 2nd amendment that suits your political agenda. At least be honest about it.

 

Actually the 2nd amendment, written in the style of the times, is about the civilian's ability to stand against tyranny of government. The concept of a militia was a citizen run force to safe guard freedom. The Supreme Court ruled gun ownership is an individual right but like all rights can be contained to a point (meaning certain weapons can be made illegal).

 

This correct, even Scallia stated this. I disagree with this opinion, but it did come down from the USSC, and it is what it is.

 

In my view the "militia" consists of each and every one of us! It's our duty to defend what the founding fathers created for us, we are all the "minutemen" of today. As much as some of us want to believe that we can rely on our government to protect us and that we no longer need privately owned guns, I'll have to respectfully disagree. "THEY WHO GIVE UP ESSENTIAL LIBERTY,TO PURCHASE A LITTLE TEMPORARY SAFETY, DESERVE NEITHER LIBERTY NOR SAFETY" ... Benjamin Franklin. With big government power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely, allowing tight gun laws or especially confiscation is giving a corrupt government the rope that it needs to hang you with, or at the very least enslave you. We have over a period of time seen our liberties erode incrementally. The only reason that it's being done slowly instead of all at once is that we are an armed society that can rise up if need be, so the government uses the "frog boiling method". You start the frog in cold water and then turn the heat up very slowly until he's cooking without realizing it. We have a DUTY to our founding fathers and to our children and grandchildren to stay awake, start defending the Constitution that was given to us protect us and that unfortunately but most importantly means staying armed. The government and gun haters can try to tell us what the definition of a "militia" is all that they want but at the end of the day we ALL are the militia!

 

Not BS it's the law.

Assumes facts not in evidence. You must have missed this in 2008.

Any more questions?

 

I agree with you entirely that the wording of the second amendment has been deliberately misinterpreted, but the point was to make this militia independent of state control.

 

In fact the US Supreme Court decision in District of Columbia v. Heller established that a person had a right to keep and bear arms for traditional purposes such as self-defense unrelated to use in the militia. That was initially for areas under federal authority (i.e. Washington DC) but then was expanded to the States in McDonald v. Chicago.

The States and federal government can impose restrictions upon firearms but such laws are must meet the criteria of a "rational basis" for the law. This brings into question whether the critieria of "able to accept a bayonet" would be considered a rational basis for prohibiting the ownership of a firearm as there are apparently no cases of a person being murdered with a bayonet attached to a rifle. There is a huge problem with "assault weapon" bans as they are not based upon any rational basis. The fact that a ,223 caliber AR15 and a .223 caliber Remington hunting rifle are functionally identical seems to argue against the proposition that banning an AR-15 is based upon a rational consideration related to the public safety. If both are identical functionally then how can one represent a public threat and the other not?

What is really silly is that fully automatic firearms remain legal in virtually all states and we don't have a "public safety" concern related to fully automatic firearms. There has only been on death using a fully automatic firearm by a civilian in the US in the last 50 years. It makes little sense to allow fully automatic firearm ownership and prohibit semi-automatic firearm ownership.

I fail to find a rational basis for the prohibitions against "assault weapons" and doubt that a rational basis can be established for these bans before the US Supreme Court.

 

You are correct in saying that the national guard qualifies as a militia, however, this does not mean that all those with arms must be in a federal militia. That is absurd. The federalist papers state exactly what the founders intent for the second amendment and why people need to be armed. The government can place some restrictions like background checks to which i have no objection too., however, the confiscation, or heavy regulation of firearms goes against the purpose of the second amendment. As I stated before, the Second amendment like the others of the Bill of Rights, list multiple rights given to the states and the people. Nowhere does it state that the government can even regulate it.